Displaying items by tag: Brazil

Greece: Titan Cement’s consolidated sales rose by 26% year-on-year to Euro1.04bn in the first half of 2022 from Euro821m in the first half of 2021. The group’s US sales rose by 23% to Euro595m from Euro482m. Its Southeastern Europe sales grew by 28% to Euro169m, while its Greece and Western Europe sales grew by 21% to Euro158m and its Eastern Mediterranean sales grew by 49% to Euro113m. The producer also holds a stake in Brazil-based Cimento Apodi, which recorded sales growth of 38% to Euro50.5m. Titan Cement’s earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) amounted to Euro139m, down by 2.5% from Euro143m. The producer expects cost pressures to persist throughout 2022. It says that its focus is on safeguarding its production, protecting its margins, improving its efficiencies and continuing with its carbon mitigation strategies.

Titan Cement’s CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious product fell by 5.6% year-on-year, driven by a reduction in the clinker factor.

Brazil: Sales of cement fell by 2.7% year-on-year to 30.8Mt in the first half of 2022 from 31.6Mt in the same period in 2021. Data from the Brazilian National Cement Industry Association (SNIC) shows that domestic sales and exports decreased by 2.7% to 30.6Mt and by 8.5% to 0.19Mt respectively.

Paulo Camillo Penna, president of SNIC said, “Throughout the year, with the successive worsening of the economic environment, high interest rates, inflation and commodity prices added to geopolitical instability, caused by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, have impacted the economy and the entire Brazilian industrial sector. In view of this scenario, the cement industry's expectation of ensuring the gains obtained from 2019 to 2021 is heading towards an undesirable frustration.”

From 2027, the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) will begin to charge third country-based cement exporters for the CO₂ emissions of their products sold inside the bloc. The new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a lynchpin in the strategy to reduce EU industries' CO₂ emissions by 55% between 1990 and 2030. Starving foreign cement industries of a source of income may also help to make them change their ways. A regional solution leveraged through an unfair head start, however, might cause progress to falter where it is most needed in the global fight against climate change.

Carbon leakage has hung over the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) since its inception in 2005. Cembureau, the European cement association, reported a 300% five-year increase in third-country cement imports up to 2021, with spikes matching those in ETS credit prices. Companies from Turkey to Australia have produced and transported their cement into the EU, at great CO₂ cost, while benefitting from a competitive edge over domestic producers, it would seem. Lawmakers rectified the situation by maintaining free allocations of ETS credits to EU industries, including cement, which received US$92m-worth in 2021.¹ In the wake of the Paris Agreement, an emissions pricing mechanism on cement imports first came before a vote of the member states in February 2017.

In what would become a recurring theme, opposition from all sides of the issue defeated the proposal. Most interesting was the international response: Brazil, China, India and South Africa voiced ‘grave concern’ over the proposed CBAM. A Russian representative at the Department of European Cooperation lamented the possible necessity of ‘response measures,’ while US Climate Envoy John Kerry coolly urged the EU to wait until after the COP26 climate change conference in November 2021. The outbursts were surprising given that the mechanism clearly conformed to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules: free allocations were always expected to phase out in a mirror image of the CBAM phase-in. The proposal eventually adopted on 22 June 2022 set the end date for both as 2032.

In 2020, the EU imported US$383m-worth of cement and concrete across its external borders, down by 17% year-on-year from US$463m in 2019.² Imports had previously more than doubled decade-on-decade from US$204min 2009. China accounted for US$167m-worth (43%) of global cement and concrete exports to the EU in 2020, followed by Vietnam with US$34m (9%) and the UK with US$30m (7.9%). Other significant sources include Belarus (US$28m - 7.4%), Russia (US$13.8m - 3.6%), Bosnia and Herzegovina (US$13.5m - 3.5%), Serbia (US$13.1 million - 3.4%), Israel (US$13m - 3.4%), Turkey (US$12.6m - 3.3%) and the US (US$10.3m - 2.7%).

China

China’s first emissions trading scheme will be one year old on 16 July 2021. The scheme, covering more than twice the CO₂ emissions accounted for under the EU ETS, may lend an apparent synergy to EU energy policy and that of the bloc’s main trade partner.³ On the contrary, Chinese carbon credits cost 8.5% the price of EU ETS credits on 29 June 2022, with a growth rate of just 10% year-on-year, compared to 53% in EU ETS credit prices. Unlike their European equivalent, they are also restricted to the energy sector. Chinese cement exporters are unready to meet the CBAM on its own terms. The inclusion of indirect emissions further disadvantages plants operating in China’s 57% coal-powered economy. Premier Li Keqiang has warned countries to be on their guard against a ‘new green trade barrier.’

These concerns ought to be considered in light of the scale and diversified nature of the China-EU trade partnership. The eventual inclusion of polymers, hydrogen and ammonia under the CBAM still does not extend its scope beyond 3% of Chinese imports to the EU by value, enabling China to retain the leverage it has previously proved willing to exercise against those who threaten the perceived interests of global trade.

China plans to reach net zero CO₂ emissions by 2060 through an energy transition in which it invested US$266m in 2021, more than the next six ranked countries combined.⁴ In the medium-term future, the CBAM may become a green bridge, connecting with Chinese emissions reduction policies in a single carbon border measure to raise money for developing countries’ sustainable transitions, as suggested by former governor of the People’s Bank of China Zhou Xiaochuan. Until then, China seems well positioned to ensure that a fair share of the costs arising from the CBAM pass to importers and the consumer.

Turkey

Turkey provided 3.3% of the EU’s cement and concrete imports in 2020, but the volume corresponded to 13% of Turkey’s total exports of the same. Thus, the country has a high exposure to any adverse effects of the CBAM – quantified at an estimated US$789m/yr by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.⁵ Turkey’s ratification of the Paris Agreement in late 2021 is among the positive outcomes of the CBAM. The country now plans to align with the CBAM. In this, the Turkish cement industry will rely on a share of a US$3.2bn loan from the World Bank, France and Germany.

The UN has yet to receive an updated climate action plan from the Turkish government in line with its pledges. Should Turkey fail to transition within the short timeframe provided by the CBAM, its cement sector might increase its existing focus on the West African market, where it holds 55% and 46% market shares for cement and clinker imports to Ghana and Ivory Coast respectively. The beleaguered industry has one greater refuge still: the US market, which consumed 18% of Turkish cement exports in 2020.

North America

Discussions of the CBAM’s impacts in Canada and the US are tied to those countries’ on-going deliberations over possible adjustment mechanisms of their own. At present, individual provinces and states are responsible for implementing carbon pricing. An international emissions trading scheme, called the Western Climate Initiative, already exists between the US state of California and the Canadian province of Quebec. The Canadian government is conducting a consultation on federal Border Carbon Adjustment (BCA) credits in the context of economy-wide pricing.⁶ Carbon border adjustment was previously an item on the US Trade Policy Agenda in 2021, but disappeared in 2022. President Biden pledged to impose 'carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations' during his candidateship in the 2020 US presidential election. On 7 June 2022, two weeks before the EU adopted CBAM, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced a carbon border adjustment bill to the US Senate, which it referred to its Committee on Finance.⁷

North American legislators will need to follow the European Parliament in building a broad centrist majority in order to pass their CBAMs. If they succeed, the world will gain a low-carbon axis of cement markets, bringing their trade partners behind them.

Other European countries

The UK cement industry expects to pay an extra US$30.1m/yr on account of the CBAM.⁹

A November 2021 report by the Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment) concluded that Ukraine's 'largest and most technological' cement producers will experience no critical influence from the CBAM when exporting to the EU.⁸ At that time, the Ukrainian strategy consisted of an alignment with any future CBAM. On 31 May 2022, The European Business Association calculated Ukrainian cement producers' total CBAM tax bill as US$3.36m/yr.¹⁰

Montenegro introduced its own emissions trading system, modelled on the EU ETS, in February 2021, a move which Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia have both announced their intent to follow.¹¹

Norway has called for international acceptance of the CBAM, but questioned the practicality of including indirect carbon pricing.

An example of the possible adverse effects of the CBAM comes from the EU's ban on Russian cement imports in April 2022. The loss of the EU market was one likely contributor to a rollback of climate regulation there.¹²

Developing countries

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) Oxfam has criticised the CBAM's failure to include an exemption for the least developed countries. The EU's solution is an indirect one: it will put CBAM revenues towards its budget, from which international climate finance funding will be raised to an equivalent level. As Paris Agreement signatories, EU member states already expect to contribute towards a total US$100bn/yr in climate finance funds for poorer countries in 2023.

Oxfam has recommended that the EU do more to take account of its disproportionate contribution to cumulative global CO₂ emissions. This would include directly paying CBAM revenues into international climate finance and accelerating the phase-out of free ETS allocations.

Conclusion

On 22 June 2022, the most sustainable cement market in the world successfully harnessed market forces to its emissions reduction ambitions. The European cement industry will be able to celebrate the end of carbon leakage. Cement companies outside of the EU, however, now face increased costs and lower prices for their product. The legislation addresses some of the harm that it causes to less developed countries; those – like China, Turkey and Vietnam – in the middle must meet it head-on.

So far, we have cited governments and lobby groups, but the real question of readiness for the CBAM lies with producers. Global cement companies, including those based in the EU, have implemented their sustainable cement technologies across all continents, and are beginning to reap the rewards of a new world where paying for pollution is unavoidable.

Sources

1. Sandbag, E3G and Energy Foundation, A Storm in a Teacup, Impacts and Geopolitical Risks of the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, August 2021, https://9tj4025ol53byww26jdkao0x-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/E3G-Sandbag-CBAM-Paper-Eng.pdf

2. Trend Economy, ‘Imports: European Union: 6810,’ 14 November 2021, https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/EuropeanUnion/6810

3. Energy Monitor, ‘Carbon trading the Chinese way,’ 5 January 2022, https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/carbon-markets/carbon-trading-the-chinese-way

4. China Power, ‘How Is China’s Energy Footprint Changing?’ https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/

5. Politico, ‘EU’s looming carbon tax nudged Turkey toward Paris climate accord, envoy says,’ 6 November 2021, https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-turkey-paris-accord-climate-change/

6. Canadian Climate Institute/L'Instut Climatique du Canada, 'Border Carbon Adjustments,' 27 January 2022, https://climateinstitute.ca/publications/border-carbon-adjustments/

7. Congress, 'S.4355 - Clean Competition Act,' 7 June 2022, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4355?s=1&r=6

8.Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment), ' The Impact of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on the EU - Ukraine trade,' November 2021, https://www.rac.org.ua/uploads/content/624/files/impactcarbonmechanismcbamukrainesummaryen.pdf

9. Burke et al, 'What does an EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism mean for the UK?' April 2021, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/What-does-an-EU-Carbon-Border-Adjustment-Mechanism-mean-for-the-UK_FULL-REPORT.pdf

10. European Business Association, 'Ukrainian exporters to pay more than € 1 billion in carbon tax to the EU under the CBAM,' 31 May 2022, https://eba.com.ua/en/ponad-1-mlrd-yevro-podatku-na-vuglets-shhoroku-splachuvatymut-ukrayinski-eksportery-v-yes-v-ramkah-svam/

11. Balkan Green Energy News, 'Which Western Balkan countries intend to introduce carbon tax?' 18 May 2022, https://balkangreenenergynews.com/which-western-balkan-countries-intend-to-introduce-carbon-tax/

12. Climate Home News, 'Russian climate action and research is collateral damage in Putin’s war on Ukraine,' 26 May 2022, https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/05/26/russian-climate-action-and-research-is-collateral-damage-in-putins-war-on-ukraine/

Brazil: The Falcão Bauer Quality Institute (IFBQ) has certified LafargeHolcim Brasil’s CP III-32 blast furnace slag cement for all construction applications. The certificate confirms that the product offers 50% reduced CO₂ compared to the average cement on the Brazilian market.

The Jornal Dia Dia newspaper has reported that sustainability manager Bruno Hallak said “The IFBQ is an institution recognised by the market and this certification confirms that we are on the right track. The production processes and methodologies evaluated can even be reproduced in other units, according to their local characteristics, increasing the gain for the environment.”

LafargeHolcim Brasil previously obtained IFBQ certification for its CP III-40 blast furnace slag cement, which offers a slightly less reduced clinker factor than CP III-32 cement, in 2021. It was the first cement of its type in Brazil to receive the certification. The company produces both cements at its Vitória grinding plant in Espírito Santo.

Holcim agreed to sell its Indian assets to Adani Group this week for US$6.37bn. These include Holcim’s stakes in its local subsidiaries Ambuja Cement and ACC. The deal, if approved by the local competition body, should complete in the second half of 2022. This is one of the larger sales of cement company assets over the last decade. Adani Group, an Indian-based conglomerate with businesses across energy, transport and more, is now poised to become the second largest cement producer in India.

Global Cement Weekly previously covered a potential sale of Ambuja Cement and ACC in April 2022 when the story that Holcim was looking for a buyer first emerged in the Indian press. At the time local press speculated that the sale could generate as much as US$15bn for Holcim. So it is interesting to see that a figure of US$6.37bn has been agreed upon instead, less than half of the speculative figure. Roughly, as ever, this places a value of a little below US$100/t of cement production capacity. This seems like a relatively low pricing for these plants by international standards over the last decade. However, this doesn’t take into account many factors such as, for example, the condition of the plants, Holcim’s desire to change its business, the ease of selling up in India all in one go, other non-cement assets and so on. For Adani Group though, buying into heavy building materials production in a large market like India clearly seemed attractive. It is also worth noting that, similar to other cement sector acquisitions recently, here again is a buyer with a background in another carbon-heavy industry buying into another heavy emitter.

Table 1: Selected large scale acquisitions of controlling shares in non-Chinese cement production assets since 2012. Source: Global Cement news and company releases. Italcementi acquisition value reported by Reuters.

Table 1 above provides some historical context to Adani Group’s agreed acquisition by comparing it to other large completed deals in the cement sector over the last decade. Don’t forget that it is only looking at this from the cement sector. This list excludes changes in ownership in the Chinese cement companies in this period because, generally, there has been a government-driven consolidation in the industry through mergers rather than large-scale acquisitions. So, for example, the world’s current biggest cement producer CNBM had a reported production capacity of 350Mt/yr in 2012 and this rose to 514Mt/yr in 2020 as it absorbed other state-owned companies. The big merger it underwent during this time was with China National Materials (Sinoma) in 2018, primarily an engineering company that also produced cement.

The most obvious trend in Table 1 is the journey of Lafarge and Holcim from their merger in 2015 and the gradual realignment of the business subsequently. During this time the company has sold up in large markets outside of its core regions in Europe and North America. Latterly, it has also started to diversify away from heavy into lightweight building materials. One notable ‘nearly happened’ was LafargeHolcim’s attempt to sell its business in the Philippines to San Miguel Corporation for US$2.15bn in 2019. That deal collapsed when the Philippines Competition Authority failed to approve it within a year of its proposal. CRH enlarged itself from assets sold during the creation of LafargeHolcim and then picked up Ash Grove in the US in 2018. CRH’s head Albert Manifold memorably said in 2018 that his company was focusing on markets in developed countries and CRH’s large-scale acquisitions have largely followed this.

As for the others, HeidelbergCement’s purchase of Italcementi in 2016 almost appeared as a riposte to the formation of LafargeHolcim, albeit on a slightly smaller scale. It confirmed HeidelbergCement’s place as the world’s second largest non-Chinese cement producer. It is also one of the minority of truly multinational acquisitions on this list. Unlike LafargeHolcim and now Holcim though, HeidelbergCement hasn’t exhibited a desire to downsize or diversify at quite the same speed. UltraTech Cement’s acquisition of Jaiprakash Associates in 2017 confirmed its place as the largest Indian producer. That deal was publicly one of the longer lasting one as it originally started out in at least 2014 on a smaller scale and was later slowed down by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Amendment Act. Smikon’s purchase of Eurocement in 2021 almost looks like part of the isolation of the Russian economy, especially with the benefit of hindsight given by the invasion of the Ukraine in early 2022.

Mega-deals have lots of moving parts but two of the most tangible to broader audiences are the price and the timing. Cemex infamously got both of these wrong with its acquisition of Rinker in 2007 as it paid high just as the US subprime mortgage crisis started a wider global financial one. This was despite Cemex’s emergence over the previous 15 years as a multinational force to be reckoned with due in part to the so-called ‘Cemex Way’ approach to management, acquisitions and integration. Clear winners from the big acquisitions over the last decade are harder to spot but CRH and UltraTech Cement look strong so far. Adani Group has certainly picked a lively time to make a purchase on this scale following a global pandemic with ongoing global supply chain issues and disruptions to energy and food markets.

Brazil: Votorantim Cimentos’ net revenue grew by 22% year-on-year to US$954m in the first quarter of 2022 from US$781m in the same period in 2021. Its cement sales volumes rose by 5% to 8Mt from 7.6Mt. However, its adjusted earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) fell by 57% to US$81.4m from US$189m. The group attributed its increased sales to ‘favourable price dynamics’ in Brazil, North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. However, its earnings suffered from inflation, mounting commodity and energy prices and a strong comparison base in the same period in 2021.

"The war in Europe, sanctions imposed on Russia, new lockdowns in China and bottlenecks in logistics chains continue to impact the global economy. In addition, rising interest rates and cost inflation have affected companies and markets as a whole. Faced with this challenging environment, we remained aligned with our strategy and attentive to costs, our operational excellence and our business plan in all regions," said Marcelo Castelli, Global chief executive officer of Votorantim Cimentos.

France: Vicat recorded first-quarter sales of Euro789m in 2022, up by 12% year-on-year from Euro707m in the first quarter of 2021. The group reported ‘solid’ year-on-year consolidated sales growth across all of its regions, with price rises offsetting negative volume effects. Cement sales grew by 7.4% in France, 4.1% in the rest of Europe, 18% in the US, 26% in Brazil and 8.5% in Africa. The Russian invasion of Ukraine did not manifest in any impacts on group activity in the quarter. Vicat estimates that in order to offset higher power costs it will need to raise its cement prices by 15% year-on-year in 2022 as a whole.

Group chair and chief executive officer Guy Sidos said “Vicat’s first-quarter sales performance reflects the dynamism of its markets, despite a high basis of comparison.” He continued “In a global environment providing little visibility in the short term, especially as regards energy costs, we are executing our strategy to improve our production performance, make greater use of secondary fuels and implement a pricing policy tailored to this new environment in pursuit of our operational, environmental and societal targets."

Germany: Beumer has announced its acquisition of conveying systems supplier FAM Group. The group says that the two companies complement each other ‘ideally.’ FAM Group employs 750 people in Germany, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China and India, as well as representatives elsewhere. Beumer says that the company’s ‘leading technology’ for transporting and processing minerals fits well with its own portfolio.

Brazil: The Brazilian cement market closed the first quarter of 2022 with a decline in sales year-on-year, according to data from the Brazilian National Cement Industry Association (SNIC). This was in part due to strong rains that affected parts of the country in January and February 2022. In March 2022, however, there was some recovery, with a 0.3% year-on-year increase in sales, to 5.53Mt.

Between January and March 2022, 14.8Mt of cement were shipped within Brazil, compared to 15.2Mt in the same period in 2021, a fall of 2.6%. Total sales, which include exports, totalled 14.91Mt, a 2.2% contraction compared to 15.25Mt in the same quarter of 2021.

SNIC said that the sector’s March 2022 performance had been bolstered by real estate projects, although this was not expected to continue. According to SNIC head Paulo Camillo Penna, self-construction, an important inducer of cement consumption, continues to slow down due to high unemployment

Brazil: The General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defence (CADE) has approved CSN’s takeover deal with Holcim for the latter’s Brazilian business. The América Economía newspaper has reported that the US$1.03m deal covers five cement plants, among other assets.

Holcim has said that its Latin America region remains strategically important within its global operations.